A New Study on campus rape and the one in five number

Cites?

Here is another snippet from Illinois State University:

http://counseling.illinoisstate.edu/sexual-assault/education/definition.shtml

I think we all know that there is a difference between drunk and incapacitation but that is not what is being taught (and I am pretty sure that it is not being taught because some actual cases are showing that being drunk means you are unable to give consent (in actual practice).

Chris17mom, raping is the problem. :slight_smile:

Don’t you watch Inside Amy Schumer? :slight_smile:

@TV4caster, a victim doesn’t have to be passed out. :slight_smile:

This is from the “Date Safe Project”

http://www.datesafeproject.org/if-someone-is-drunk/

TV4caster, which schools are using that standard mentioned in post 1083?

Occidental College is in the news about sexual assault often.

Here is Occidental defintion on incapacitaion…

http://www.oxy.edu/sexual-assault-resources-support/policies-procedures

Here is Cornell’s:

[quote]
Inability to consent due to intoxication means “no.” When a person is the recipient of sexual advances but is highly intoxicated, he or she may be unable to consent to any sexual conduct. In the words of the Review Board, “sexual interactions with another party who has been drinking heavily should . . . be undertaken . . . at one’s own risk.” A panel of the Hearing Board has also noted, “No member of the community should be at risk of a sexual assault merely because [he or she] consumes too much alcohol at a party. Cornell aspires to be a community in which students come to the aid of others who find themselves in such a state [rather than seeing them] as someone [to] exploit.”/quote

Not the use of the words highly intoxicated, NOT incapacitated.

This is Illinois…you left something out TV4caster…

Note also the use of may.

CF, yes…

https://share.cornell.edu/policies-laws/sex-alcohol-and-clear-consent/

@dstark Re: 1085

In the Oxy case the girl was clearly not incapacitated when she texted the guy and walked back to his room. Despite that he was found guilty. Sounds like she was “highly intoxicated” and not incapacitated for much of the event. I know there was additional testimony about when they two were in bed, but overall much of the issue seems to be her heavy intoxication and not incapacitation.

I’m really ok with guys thinking that if the girl is drunk it’s rape and therefore not having sex with drunk women. I’m not ok with a third of college guys not realizing that having sex with someone who doesn’t want you to do is rape. I’m not ok when only 4% of rape complaints result in prosecution. I’m not ok when the 28% of those who report rape who are not intoxicated still are not believed. If 15% of our daughters experience attempted/completed sexual assault during their first year of college I am way more concerned than if, what, less than 1.5% of guy potentially may face a false accusation. And, then I might add, have due process to defend themselves. Can someone show me the epidemic of false accusations resulting in expulsion from college or conviction? Can someone show me multiple cases of guys being prosecuted solely because the woman was drunk? Yes, being accused is a life changing event, but then so is being sexually assaulted and/or raped. (These statistics are from links all over the place in this thread, so they may not be accurate, but they are not made up.)

TV4caster, there were witnesses. Male witnesses. Males tried to protect her because she was not in condition to give consent.

Don’t give me bs. :slight_smile:

@Cardinal Fang Re: 1088 exactly! may! That leaves too much open to interpretation.

TV4caster, the meaning of the word may means you are wrong. :wink:

@dstark tell me why you said she was not able to give consent. Why did the male witnesses think she was unable to give consent?

PS- there were also male witnesses that did not try to protect her because they thought she clearly did give consent.

Don’t give me bs. :slight_smile:

@my3girls I agree 100% with what you wrote.

That’s your opinion. However, it is not the opinion of the judge who made the decision. A guy who has sex with a woman who is stumbling, puking and slurring, as this woman was doing, is taking the risk that she will accuse him of raping her and the college will decide that a stumbling, puking, slurring woman is incapacitated. In point of fact, I too would say that a stumbling, puking, slurring person is incapacitated.

So, guy who is about to have sex with a stumbling, puking, slurring woman, do you feel lucky? Do you want to take that risk, guy who is about to have sex with a stumbling, puking, slurring woman?

I am not giving you bs. You ask the guys.

You are feeding me bs with this drunk sex means non consenting sex. Sometimes drunk sex does…if somebody is unable to give consent.

Drunk sex does not equal non consenting sex. No bs.

You and CF must interpret the English language differently than me. Saying some who is drunk MAY not be able to give consent is different than saying someone who is drunk IS able to give consent (or someone who is drunk is NOT able to give consent). I would argue that by not specifically saying that can give consent they are implying that you CANNOT give consent (when they say may)